Windows 8 Enterprise is the reverse-mullet of operating systems: all party in front and business in the back. Up front, the new Start screen and touch-focused interface are more focused on users having a good time—one can not imagine many productivity applications for having access to content based on a gamertag, for example. Behind the tiles, the Desktop is where all the real work will happen.

And even at the Desktop level, Windows 8 Enterprise does not wear its business credibility on its sleeves. The exclusive features in the volume-licensed version of Windows 8 packaged specifically for business users are for the most part under the covers and barely visible. But they make it possible for users to work more securely, and take their work with them when they untether from the LAN—or, with one new feature, when they unplug their boot thumbdrive from the PC.

There are six features exclusive to Windows 8 Enterprise that aim to make it friendlier for business use:

Windows to Go capability, which allows users to boot a secured image of Windows from a USB drive

BranchCache content staging and network storage caching feature

AppLocker application access control

DirectAccess remote access technology

Enhanced VDI support for touch-based Windows devices

"Side-loading" of internal applications developed using the "Metro" interface

Not all of these features are new in Windows 8. DirectAccess, AppLocker, and BranchCache were available in Windows 7 Enterprise and Ultimate, as was VDI support. The improvements in BranchCache, VDI support, and DirectAccess are also dependent on changes in Windows Server 2012. And other than Windows to Go and VDI, the features are largely hidden from the end-user and depend on Active Directory and Windows group policy settings—and in some cases Windows' PowerShell—to be configured.

But are these features in and of themselves enough for businesses to justify upgrading—and dealing with the user retraining, software testing, and other hassles that come with a major operating system upgrade? For companies that have volume licensing already in place, for whom a "step-up" fee may not be that major a financial consideration, the other hard and soft costs of upgrading may outweigh any benefits from the internal improvements of Windows 8 itself. Much of the decision will rest on whether or not to embrace the new Windows 8 application development model, the adoption of x86-based tablets, and considerations beyond the technical soundness of the platform itself.

The good news is that Windows 8 Enterprise is ready to go when businesses decide to be assimilated—and IT pros won't have to change much about how they currently support Windows desktops and notebooks to accommodate the change. Some of the new features of Windows 8 Enterprise may not be easy to deploy immediately because of a lack of supporting devices and applications, however. So it might be a while before many businesses feel ready to stop fearing the Start screen and love Windows 8 Enterprise.

Windows to Go and VDI

For organizations that have users without a fixed PC to go to, Windows 8 Enterprise offers two ways to connect to their own personal desktop: Windows to Go, which puts the whole Windows 8 environment onto a portable USB-based storage device, and through a virtual desktop infrastructure with Remote Desktop Connection.

Windows to Go is a great idea: a secure, corporate-approved image of Windows 8 that can be booted from a USB-connected device on practically any recent PC without touching the local operating system. Combined with DirectAccess or a VPN, it gives people a safe way to reach back to the home office, check mail, and access documents from an untrusted PC. Users can do this at home, a client's office, or a public computer—all without fear of leaving a trail or exposing corporate systems to malware lurking on an under-protected system.

I did a somewhat involved test of Windows to Go's concept after the Consumer Preview was released, using Windows 7 administrative tools to build out my bootable image on a 32-gigabyte USB stick. It worked well for beta, but it was too labor-intensive for your average user to self-configure. Now, Microsoft has completely automated the creation of Windows to Go volumes with a click-and-go utility on a desktop for self-provisioning. There are also tools in System Center 2012 for provisioning Windows to Go images.

Enlarge/ To self-provision a Windows to Go "workspace," the first step is to find the Windows to Go wizard in Windows 8's Settings (Window key + W brings you to the settings search in the Start window).

Windows to Go requires Windows 8 Enterprise to work because of its volume licensing—other versions of Windows get married by their installation keys to specific hardware. And that's fine, because it's a feature that is best when married with the other features enabled by Windows 8 Enterprise.

Enlarge/ Step 2: Insert your USB, and select it in the provisioning wizard as a target.

There's really just one fly in the ointment—the self-provisioning tool only works with USB drives that are "Windows to Go Certified." That's a short list at the moment. As of launch, there are only three devices certified for Windows to Go, and one of them—Western Digital's My Passport Enterprise—is a 500-gibabyte portable hard drive. This is not the sort of thing you carry around hanging from a lanyard (unless you're Flava Flav, and you glue a clock to it).

Step 3: Scream in frustration when you find the 32GB USB you've been using to boot the beta from is no longer supported in the final release.

The key attributes of being a certified Windows to Go device are USB 3.0 support and firmware to support two partitions: a 350-megabyte FAT32 system partition and another larger NTFS partition for Windows 8 itself.

If you're an administrator building a custom Windows to Go "workspace," as Microsoft refers to it, the process can be automated to some degree. You'll need to use PowerShell scripts, the Deployment Image Servicing, and Management command-line toolkit or the Windows 7 Automated Installation Kit (see the TechNet walkthrough for those details).

One other limitation of Windows to Go that most companies won't care too much about is that the Windows Store is disabled and apps purchased from it won't run. That's because Windows Store licenses are linked to a specific computer.

Remote Desktop connection, on the other hand, follows a more traditional route to desktop and app access for users not bound to a single PC. Microsoft put a lot of work into its support for virtual desktop infrastructure in Windows Server 2012, and that's reflected in Windows 8 Enterprise. It now offers better support for all sorts of users—including those with touch-based tablets.

The biggest changes to VDI in Windows 8 Enterprise are related to how it connects to the remote session. Windows 8 and Windows Server 2012 use RemoteFX to support virtual desktop sessions, instead of the vanilla Remote Desktop Protocol. RemoteFX can harness a graphics processor on the server to power multiple remote desktop sessions. Users can then access apps with 3D graphics and handle all the heavy lifting on the back-end, either through a full remote desktop experience or through a RemoteApp virtualized application session.

Enlarge/ A Remote Desktop Connection session with Windows 8. The client's own menu provides quick access to Metro apps' interfaces without having to deal with mouse-hover to be recognized over a WAN connection.

The Remote Desktop Connection client in Windows 8 Enterprise also supports connecting local USB devices. Another addition is support for touch-based interaction with remote sessions of Windows 8—not just over a local network connection, but over a WAN connection as well. That may make Windows 8 Enterprise more attractive to organizations that want to put tighter security control on tablets, such as hospitals.

BranchCache

Introduced in Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2, BranchCache is a technology designed for optimizing the use of bandwidth over a wide-area network. It does so by caching files and webpages from the corporate network locally. Instead of reaching out across the network to hit a remote Web or file server, BranchCache-enabled Windows clients retrieve metadata about the content from the original host, then check local caches. Those caches can reside either on a local Windows Server acting as cache server (in a "hosted cache" configuration) or from other PCs on the local subnet (using "distributed cache" mode).

On the client side, BranchCache gets switched on through a Windows Group Policy Object when a user logs in through Active Directory. Through the Group Policy Editor, you can designate the maximum amount of disk space that can be used for BranchCache's hash store.

Unlike Windows' client-side caching of network shares—a feature that's been in Windows since Windows XP—BranchCache isn't intended to provide offline use of files. While it can work alongside offline file caching, BranchCache can also be used with other sorts of network content, such as company-private webpages and Windows updates distributed internally through Windows Server Update Services. In essence, it's your organization's very own internal content delivery network.

Rather than storing data in a file structure, BranchCache stores it as a series of hashes based on the location the data came from. Windows 8 Enterprise PCs in a distributed caching environment share that data over the same protocols it came in on (HTTP, HTTPS, or SMB) as BranchCache services running on PCs exchange messages within the subnet.

Distributed cache mode works well for small offices where deploying a local server would be too expensive or difficult to support. It is also a good solution for organizations that use a hosting company or cloud provider for their Windows server infrastructure.

There's no user control surface to enable BranchCache, though you can turn the service on and off as administrator through Windows 8's services management console.

Enlarge/ All an end-user will ever see of BranchCache (other than faster intranet response) if they dig down into Windows 8's Services.

While the general functionality of BranchCache hasn't changed much from Windows 7 to Windows 8, there have been a lot of tweaks to how it performs them. Configuration of BranchCache in Windows 8 Enterprise is automatic, and Microsoft has added data deduplication features to the client-based BranchCache to prevent multiple PCs from downloading the same content. Changes are also made in smaller chunks now, so that small changes to files don't require another full download across the WAN.

The mullet reference cracked me up and I also appreciate the Flava Flav reference. A former flatmate of mine got a wallclock on a bronze chain as a birthday present because he constantly asked everybody for the time and refused to get a watch

Quote:

Slmgr.vbs (a special sideloading script)

Huh?Makes it sound like that thing would be new. That script has been around at least since Vista for managing windows licenses, license certificates, KMS cnfiguration and more.

How exactly is side loading going to work with special keys and hook itself in here?That might have been an interesting paragraph, at least for me.

Enterprise adoption is going to depend more on the users being comfortable with the interface than IT's desire for the underlying technology. I know at the current time I have no interest in deploying it.

the first screenshot gave me a headache. Seriously, this is fucking horrendous...

I saw that and went 'oh yea, thats not bad, I can find everything easy!'

I have to say, I am very scared of W8 on the desktop. I like my shortcuts on the desktop for each program I use and I like a start button. I don't know specifically what the issue is with 'full screen' mode but it sounds terrible if its what I envision - only one full screen at a time? Ugh, I am a 'panel' person and have 6 open at the moment across 2 screens in various sizes not to mention10 tabs on IE. If you have to 'flip' through pages to get to all these things that sounds like a disaster to me. Say it isn't so, I honestly dunno.

I don't know specifically what the issue is with 'full screen' mode but it sounds terrible if its what I envision - only one full screen at a time?

The main issues as far as I can tell are the full screen Start menu and Metro apps in general.

The Start Menu is no longer a small block on the bottom left of screen (that was the default location, yes you could change it). It's now a full screen. So you don't see 6 recent apps when you click Start, you see 20+ icons in big (touch-friendly) squares.

Just like Win7 you can hit the Windows key and type a program name for quick access; but Control Panel items are not selected for that search by default (check over on the RHS for the Settings button you can click).

The root cause of the Start screen issue seems to me to be "Having the Start screen be a full screen is jarring and I don't like it". Having used it since the earliest previews - I really do not see that problem (but I'm an IT pro and used to UI changes). I almost see it as analogous to the Win 3.x > Win95 change - "I don't like the Start button I want Program Manager back".

The Metro app problem is that they are full-screen or sidebar only - and no I'm not a fan of that.

Basically - even with 2 high-res screens you can have only 4 Metro apps visible - one sidebar and one "rest of screen" app - at a time. From memory the sidebar app will be ~340 wide and display height; the other app will be the rest of the display. Side-by-side mode works only if the screen is higher than 1366 x 768, so the larger app is at least 1024 x 768 - on lower resolutions, you don't even get the sidebar mode.

Already been rejected at my work. That was done back during the preview, and nobody's mind is getting changed about it at this point. People know how to use Windows 7, understand it, and generally like it. We're not spending the very large sums required on a mass migration effort to gain the privilege of having to spend more on training people on the new UI for no particular gain.

We'll take a look again when Windows 9 rolls around and they fix the problems.

Basically - even with 2 high-res screens you can have only 4 Metro apps visible - one sidebar and one "rest of screen" app - at a time. From memory the sidebar app will be ~340 wide and display height; the other app will be the rest of the display. Side-by-side mode works only if the screen is higher than 1366 x 768, so the larger app is at least 1024 x 768 - on lower resolutions, you don't even get the sidebar mode.

Yeah this is a horrible decision for PCs. People do real work on these things, we need to be able to align multiple Windows in more then this cripplingly limited way.

I mean, not that anybody is going to be doing real work in Metro apps for years... but then that itself defeats the point of bothering to get Windows 8 anyway, doesn't it?

i) Windows 8's UI quirks will matter less when users have their own systems at home.

ii) I can imagine it won't be too long until Metro apps get to use the desktop, maybe in Windows 9 in WinRT release 2, or maybe some enterprising user will figure out how to re-route the window-drawing. (Will this be the Post-Modern UI? )

iii) Whatever my misgivings about the limitations of Metro on the desktop, many users might not notice the difference once they learn the HIDDEN GESTURES (sorry, I heard Steven Sinofsky claim no hidden gestures and it really riled me), because they already use their applications in full-screen mode. Personally I like the context of multiple overlapping windows and even use Outlook messages in windows as a rudimentary task list. However, I do think, and hope that MS will enable developers to do more interesting things to 'plumb' applications/data together so that, especially for LoB apps, all the information you need can be on screen at once (or scrollable) so that you don't have to switch between applications.

I don't know specifically what the issue is with 'full screen' mode but it sounds terrible if its what I envision - only one full screen at a time?

The main issues as far as I can tell are the full screen Start menu and Metro apps in general.

The Start Menu is no longer a small block on the bottom left of screen (that was the default location, yes you could change it). It's now a full screen. So you don't see 6 recent apps when you click Start, you see 20+ icons in big (touch-friendly) squares.

Just like Win7 you can hit the Windows key and type a program name for quick access; but Control Panel items are not selected for that search by default (check over on the RHS for the Settings button you can click).

The root cause of the Start screen issue seems to me to be "Having the Start screen be a full screen is jarring and I don't like it". Having used it since the earliest previews - I really do not see that problem (but I'm an IT pro and used to UI changes). I almost see it as analogous to the Win 3.x > Win95 change - "I don't like the Start button I want Program Manager back".

The Metro app problem is that they are full-screen or sidebar only - and no I'm not a fan of that.

Basically - even with 2 high-res screens you can have only 4 Metro apps visible - one sidebar and one "rest of screen" app - at a time. From memory the sidebar app will be ~340 wide and display height; the other app will be the rest of the display. Side-by-side mode works only if the screen is higher than 1366 x 768, so the larger app is at least 1024 x 768 - on lower resolutions, you don't even get the sidebar mode.

Another problem with multiple monitors is that "hot corners" are very hard to discover and hit. It was totally unusable in the previews, now thanks to a few tweaks MS did as an afterthought, it's just very awkward. Lots of "IT pro's" use multiple screens.

I'd like to point out that while I was at the IDF 2012 in San Francisco I saw Kingston Windows to Go devices at their stand at the expo. It sounds weird that there are now only 3 such devices certified. How did you come up with that number?

Enterprise adoption is going to depend more on the users being comfortable with the interface than IT's desire for the underlying technology. I know at the current time I have no interest in deploying it.

I was going to touch on this myself albeit from a slightly different angle. In my field there is absolutely no way we can integrate Win8 at the moment. A couple things right off the bat that come to mind. Management who makes the final decisions will be thoroughly confused using a new OS. If it's not completely transparent then it's a hindrance. They don't want to deal with it if they have to take the time and money to adapt away from a system that currently 'works'. Secondly is the current software situation. At least in an engineering environment where every aspect of work is ISO certified, just V&V'ing (verification and validation) every piece of software on a new OS takes tremendous amount of time and resources.

Also, a lot of large corporations are just now in the process of adapting to Win7. I know in my situation we're just about to the point where we can release it. I'm currently dreading dealing with users who will get confused with even the minor things, such as how the file system works. There is no way we're even considering a new OS at the moment, no matter how enterprise friendly it might be.

As much as I dislike the Win8 UI, I have to admit MS did a fine job with the underlying OS (as well as the improvements to the desktop, ironically).

One thing in particular that, as a Citrix Admin, I'm looking forward to is SMB V3 which is only available on Win8 and server 2012 systems. When the two are paired together, things like SMB active load balancing and transparent failover becomes possible.

Of course, I'm thinking of deploying this not as win8 machines or even as RDPed full "win8 style" desktop (which, BTW, are even less usable over RDP than on the client) but as app server deploying seamless remote apps session to windows 7 clients through remoteApp and Citrix.

I suppose, however, that if you can go over the craptastic UI (maybe your users actually like it) and considering wether to deploy windows 8 in your enterprise, then SMBv3 should be one of the really important points to consider. I know: it seems almost good enough for me to overcome my own dislike of Metro.

Enterprise adoption is going to depend more on the users being comfortable with the interface than IT's desire for the underlying technology. I know at the current time I have no interest in deploying it.

Everywhere I have worked IT and software compatibility had the final say over when to upgrade the OS. It's never been about what the users want. How much the users liked the Os had very little impact on those kins of decisions. the users who didn't like it either learned to tolerate and work with it or found employment elsewhere.

I haven't seen a compelling reason for either one of my employers (sysadmin @ School District/25B @ USArmy Reserves) to upgrade to Win8. We're still migrating W2k servers to 2k8r2 and replacing apps that won't run in our current environment. We're only just in the last 25% of moving our users' to Windows 7. This migration has been expensive and required a lot of retraining. Everyone here is stoked about their iPads and Chromebooks and no one seems interested in having to redo what we've just done. I might seriously be the only tech on staff that's even installed Win8 for personal testing.

My reserve unit has only just started moving to Windows 7. In fact, I'll spend this weekend pushing Win7 out to a couple hundred machines. I'm sure Monday will be a long day at the IMO. I saw Guard bases like Camp Shelby running Windows 7 . That surprised me because my experience in the Army, active and reserve, has shown me that the DOA stays an iteration behind.

Personally, I like the changes - once I dropped the new start menu. I've upgraded the whole house.

I may have to put this in front of 15,000 students in computer labs. This will be a nightmare. The UI experience and customization is very important in this situation so students can find things easily, often without knowing the exact shortcut name they need. Right now I can arrange things on the Start Menu just by manipulating some files/folders.

In Win8 I get to make a template of shortcuts. A static template file. For each lab software loadout. That has to be re-created and redployed everytime a professor needs software added after the semester cutoff date. (You try getting professors to follow a deadline.) We didn't try to pin things to the Task Bar for this very same reason. The only way to do it programmatically was a very hacky VBS script.

Enterprise adoption is going to depend more on the users being comfortable with the interface than IT's desire for the underlying technology. I know at the current time I have no interest in deploying it.

I was going to touch on this myself albeit from a slightly different angle. In my field there is absolutely no way we can integrate Win8 at the moment. A couple things right off the bat that come to mind. Management who makes the final decisions will be thoroughly confused using a new OS. If it's not completely transparent then it's a hindrance. They don't want to deal with it if they have to take the time and money to adapt away from a system that currently 'works'. Secondly is the current software situation. At least in an engineering environment where every aspect of work is ISO certified, just V&V'ing (verification and validation) every piece of software on a new OS takes tremendous amount of time and resources.

Also, a lot of large corporations are just now in the process of adapting to Win7. I know in my situation we're just about to the point where we can release it. I'm currently dreading dealing with users who will get confused with even the minor things, such as how the file system works. There is no way we're even considering a new OS at the moment, no matter how enterprise friendly it might be.

This is exactly where my workplace is at. We're just now getting to the point where most everything is V&V'd for Win 7, and the completely different look of Win 8 has upper management (as well as us in the IT staff) very reluctant to even contemplate an eventual switch due to the inevitable deluge of user issues.

The root cause of the Start screen issue seems to me to be "Having the Start screen be a full screen is jarring and I don't like it". Having used it since the earliest previews - I really do not see that problem (but I'm an IT pro and used to UI changes). I almost see it as analogous to the Win 3.x > Win95 change - "I don't like the Start button I want Program Manager back".

If malware took over my screen every hour and I didn't like it, would I be afraid of change?

With Windows 7 I can initiate a network search and let it churn while I'm reading an Office document. With Windows 8 I get kicked into an ad screen.

This "fear of change" defense is really stupid. How far would you go with it? What if Microsoft also made us watch a 10 sec Flash ad every time the start button was hit? Would you support that as well and call detractors afraid of change?

Basically - even with 2 high-res screens you can have only 4 Metro apps visible - one sidebar and one "rest of screen" app - at a time. From memory the sidebar app will be ~340 wide and display height; the other app will be the rest of the display. Side-by-side mode works only if the screen is higher than 1366 x 768, so the larger app is at least 1024 x 768 - on lower resolutions, you don't even get the sidebar mode.

Yeah this is a horrible decision for PCs. People do real work on these things, we need to be able to align multiple Windows in more then this cripplingly limited way.

I mean, not that anybody is going to be doing real work in Metro apps for years... but then that itself defeats the point of bothering to get Windows 8 anyway, doesn't it?

When you say people I'm sure you are referring to another group that doesn't include programmers/technical people? The reality I've seen is that "people" doing "real work" consists of an email appilcation (side bar), and one Line Of Buisness application at a time. If there is a third application open it typically is something such as a web browser, in which case the LOB app isn't being used at the same time.

Note: I work for a non-technical company in a building of 800+ business users (also these opinions are that of my own and not my employer).

I think now is probably a good time to move to Windows 8. I mean, everything in Windows 7 should work in 8. The bigger hump will be in a few years where they have to move and not only may their legacy applications not work, they'll have to retrain their users. Right now they'll just have to spend a small portion training users and they'll be off, for the most part.

In addition, I think a lot of people are really underestimating how the average user is going to take to Windows 8. My mother, for example, saw a commercial and immediately wanted to upgrade. She said, "Oh my gosh, it looks just like my phone! Can you show me it? Can we really upgrade for $40 bucks?" Now, keep in mind that she's the least techy person I know. She literally just upgraded to broadband a couple of months ago.

That isn't to say that others won't be put off by the change more than her. However, to me that shows that a lot of people are going out of their way to resist a bit of change. I know there are plenty of legitimate complaints, but nothing that should really make you hate Windows 8 as much as a lot of you do. Sure, there's relearning the interface. But just how hard can this hot corner system be?

I know for me being at the high-end of technicalness (I'm sure there's a better way to say that ), I picked it up pretty quickly. Not only did I pick it up quickly, though, I became more efficient by adapting to the new ways of using Windows 8. I work faster, IMO and there's some things I don't think I'd want to go back to. For instance, on the extreme side of things, the Marketplace. I'm super excited for the plethora of apps that will sure to follow Windows 8, Windows RT, WP8 and eventually the Xbox. Microsoft has really paved the way for something great, here. As more robust apps get developed, we're going to see cross-platform, business-line applications like we've never seen. Same with games. Same with all sorts of applications. People will love this. As for right now, I'm enjoying the speed boost. Boot, wake, shutdown, etc times have all been increased significantly.

Anyways, I apologize for the rant. I guess all I'm getting at is a unified user experience at cost of the start menu is a wonderful investment and I think in time, that'll be very clear.

The delta for enterprise features in Windows 8 does not sound much different than for past versions of Windows. Customers who use windows for serious work are primarily interested in the applications that they use to do their work. Customers who are only casual users of their computers don't have much need for anything more than they already have. Typically enterprises have not been quick to upgrade their version of Windows. In an era of declining interest in the PC with an intentionally disruptive version of Windows focused more on cosmetics than any functions of real value, it is hard to see any reason why the adoption rate would be quicker than it has been in the past.

... We're still migrating W2k servers to 2k8r2 and replacing apps that won't run in our current environment. We're only just in the last 25% of moving our users' to Windows 7. This migration has been expensive and required a lot of retraining. Everyone here is stoked about their iPads and Chromebooks and no one seems interested in having to redo what we've just done....

This post just doesn't make sense. You are only now, migrating off of Windoiws 2000 Server - a product that hasn't been supported yet alone received a single patch or update in over two years?!?

How did you deal with user training for iPads and Chromabooks? You claim the migration to Windows 7 has been slow and required a lot of retraining but somehow moving to a totally different platform isn't?!? C'mon.

I find the tone of this article...odd. It seems to be saying, general, that Win8 Enterprise is generally great and likely worth upgrading to in the business world. But that seems to be quite a different viewpoint from the one in Peter Bright's review, which spends a lot of time talking about how it's an exercise in frustration trying to work with both Metro and the traditional desktop (as opposed to either one or the other), and John Brodkin's article, which talks about how poor the core Win8 apps are on the desktop (versus on tablets).

In other words, I'm seeing more articles implying that Win8 is not a good choice for the office at this point than articles saying it is.

Enterprise adoption is going to depend more on the users being comfortable with the interface than IT's desire for the underlying technology. I know at the current time I have no interest in deploying it.

I am former enterprise I.T. director. I have zero interest in deploying this. It's scary. Win 7 and XP were fine. This isn't.

This review is intriguing enough that I'd try Win8 Ent, except for one thing. I've been using Office 2013 on Win7 for the past two days, and its "Metro-ized" interface is actually making my eyes physically tired. It's kinda like not wearing glasses on a bright sunny day--the lack of nuance is fatiguing.

I find the tone of this article...odd. It seems to be saying, general, that Win8 Enterprise is generally great and likely worth upgrading to in the business world. But that seems to be quite a different viewpoint from the one in Peter Bright's review, which spends a lot of time talking about how it's an exercise in frustration trying to work with both Metro and the traditional desktop (as opposed to either one or the other), and John Brodkin's article, which talks about how poor the core Win8 apps are on the desktop (versus on tablets).

In other words, I'm seeing more articles implying that Win8 is not a good choice for the office at this point than articles saying it is.

Actually, I'm not implying it's that great a choice at all. I think that as far as enterprise-exclusive factors, Microsoft has nudged a few things forward that were already doable in Windows 7 Enterprise, and the decision to upgrade rests largely on the features we've reviewed elsewhere. By themselves, I don't think they're enough to warrant the move.

I'd like to point out that while I was at the IDF 2012 in San Francisco I saw Kingston Windows to Go devices at their stand at the expo. It sounds weird that there are now only 3 such devices certified. How did you come up with that number?

Enterprise adoption is going to depend more on the users being comfortable with the interface than IT's desire for the underlying technology. I know at the current time I have no interest in deploying it.

I am former enterprise I.T. director. I have zero interest in deploying this. It's scary. Win 7 and XP were fine. This isn't.

Explain what is scary about it. If you're so damn smart you can give a whole list of reasons beyond "I hate Metro".

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.